Don’t assume we will win

Growing up, my dad used to tell me, “The good guys always win” and broadly, popular culture and the global geopolitical environment reflected this reality.

Whether it was Indiana Jones punching Nazis to secure the Holy Grail or beating the evil, human-sacrificing Thuggee cult; Luke Skywalker helping to topple the evil Galactic Empire; through to humanity uniting under American leadership to emerge victorious in Independence Day, popular culture was dominated by the “good guys” winning.

Meanwhile, on the global stage – from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa and southern Europe – the Western world, led by the United States, intervened to defend human rights and national sovereignty and prevent horrific episodes of ethnic cleansing. To an outside observer, it would very much appear as though the “good guys” had won.

This is reflected in the popularity of the “End of History” theory presented by Francis Fukuyama in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the triumphant elation which swept the Western World.

Fukuyama’s well-meaning but ultimately misguided theory posited that the ultimate triumph of liberal, capitalist democracy had been assured following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the remaining Communist hold outs would, as they became wealthier, trend towards becoming more liberal and democratic in time.

In many ways, the optimism espoused by Fukuyama and then subsequently reinforced by Samuel Huntington, through his seminal piece The Clash of Civilizations, where he proposed that the era of great power competition and conflict was over and would be replaced by sporadic conflict between the “civilisations” along religious and cultural lines, ultimately culminated in the theory of the “West versus the Rest”.

While elements of Huntington’s theory would come to fruition following the September 11 attacks and the outbreak of the Global War on Terror, the broad strokes of his theory have fallen flat. The same fate has befallen Fukuyama’s theory as the resurgence of Russia, under Vladimir Putin, and the People’s Republic of China, now under Xi Jinping, directly challenge the post-Second World War order.

VIEW ALL

Throughout this period in history, it was easy to understand why the “good guys” always won or, at least, seemed to. Bringing us to today.

All the preconditions for a dominant revisionist world order

With revisionist, autocratic powers seemingly emboldened and on the march across the globe, anchored by nations like Russia, China and Iran, many have been quick to draw comparisons to the “Rome–Berlin–Tokyo Axis” that served as the core of the Axis powers during the Second World War.

And this comparison is easy to understand, especially when we take into account the relative position of the US-led Western world.

For the “good guys”, or the US-led Western world order, we have been facing nearly two decades of economic stagnation and decline (despite being interspersed with periods of market rally) since the 2008 Financial Crisis that only served to accelerate the hollowing out of what remained of the Western World’s industrial base.

This transition from a “manufacturing-based economy” to a “services-based economy” has seen many nations, Australia included, expand their dependence on the manufacturing might of China, with these nations, but especially Australia and Canada, rapidly transitioning into little more than a farm and a mine to meet the voracious appetites of the rising superpower.

Meanwhile, domestic political division and intergenerational warfare across the Western world is only ramping up, driven in large part by conflicting ideological views of the world, the systems, and even their own history, further enflamed by a combination of declining long-term job opportunities, an inability to enter the property market, and the mounting burden of government debt each of which only exacerbates the dislocation and sense of betrayal young people feel.

These factors have only served to increase the attractiveness of political and economic ideologies that are anathema to the enlightenment values of meritocracy, individualism, innovation, and liberty that have formed the foundation of the Western World’s success, serving to undermine the narrative of the “good guys”.

Now I know, anyone with even a passing knowledge of history knows that there really isn’t “good guys” or “bad guys”, rather there is varying shades of gray or at least that is what the moral relativists would have us believe, but for the sake of argument, there is very much “good guys” and “bad guys”.

In contrast, the new Axis bloc, spearheaded by Beijing, is seemingly increasingly united (at least in terms of long-term objective), economically robust, financially integrated and – even despite Russia’s setbacks in Ukraine – militarily capable of challenging the post-Second World War economic, political, and strategic order.

Reinforcing this is acclaimed historian Niall Ferguson, speaking to Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster on the sidelines of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference held earlier this year, where he explained the difference between previous eras of great power competition, saying, “The things that are concerning to me are number one, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are working with increasing coordination that are threatening to a number of democracies...

“Secondly, China’s really much bigger economically, it has much greater resources technologically too than any previous rival that the United States or its allies faced. The Soviet Union, economically, was never more than about 42 per cent of GDP relative to the US. Well, China’s a lot bigger than that, certainly in the 80 per cent range, it’s above 100 per cent if you do a purchasing power parity calculation, so that’s the second point,” Ferguson explained.

This is only reinforced by the growing interconnectivity and collaboration between these revisionist powers via parallel multilateral organisations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the BRICS bloc that have provided sanction-busting support to Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.

All of this comes before the increasing military capability of these nations, once again led by China, which has engaged in the largest peacetime build-up of its military capabilities since the interwar years, resulting in an increasingly capable, technologically advanced, and sizeable military capability designed to push back against and defeat the United States and its allies.

With the ongoing war in Ukraine and concerns about Europe’s lack of industrial and military capability, coupled with the broader industrial decline of the West (in spite of recent initiatives to reverse these losses), to respond to active aggression from peer, or near-peer rivals.

All of this combines to create a dramatically different and more dangerous environment than ever on the eve of the Second World War, yet the Western world seems to have made little in the way of progress to prepare itself for the dangers clearly on the horizon.

With all of this in mind, it becomes pretty clear, we can’t assume we will win this ongoing struggle for global primacy and we certainly shouldn’t assume we have it locked up, so we best prepare to win.

Final thoughts

Despite the rhetoric and lofty ambition highlighted by both sides of the political debate, this all paints a fairly gloomy picture for the average Australian, no matter the demographic group in which they fall, but especially the younger generations.

Declining economic opportunity, coupled with the rapidly deteriorating global and regional balance of power and the increased politicisation of every aspect of contemporary life, only serves to exacerbate the very reality of disconnection, apathy, and helplessness felt by many Australians.

This attitude is only serving to be compounded and creates a growing sentiment that we are speeding towards a predestined outcome, thus disempowering the Australian people and, to a lesser extent, policymakers, as we futilely confront seemingly insurmountable challenges with little to no benefit and at a high-risk/reward calculation.

Taking into account the costs and implications, it is therefore easy to understand why so many Australians, both in the general public and within our decision-making circles, seem to have checked out and are quite happy to allow the nation to continue to limp along in mediocrity because, well, it is easier than having lofty ambitions.

If both Australian policymakers and the Australian public don’t snap out of the comforting security blanket that is the belief in the “End of History”, the nation will continue to rapidly face an uncomfortable and increasingly dangerous new reality, where we truly are no longer the masters of our own destiny.

Our economic resilience, capacity, and competitiveness will prove equally as critical to success in the new world power paradigm as that of the United States, the United Kingdom, or Europe, and we need to begin to recognise the opportunities presented before us.

Expanding and enhancing the opportunities available to Australians while building critical economic resilience, and as a result, deterrence to economic coercion, should be the core focus of the government because only when our economy is strong can we ensure that we can deter aggression towards the nation or our interests.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..